• Researched sustainable and efficient design concepts utilizing aluminum • Improvised a winning aluminum shade design to reduce electricity costs of buildings at Penn State University

1. Aluminum Sun Shades
Frank Ciongoli, Connor Blakeney, Alex Ciambotti, Dan Pfeiffer-Kelly

2. Table of Contents
• Description of Design Task
• Design Process/Approach
• Evaluation
• Engineering Analysis
• Prototype/Model
• Conclusion
• Project Management
• References
• Questions

3. Problem Statement
Alcoa's Deliverable
• “This project involves the design and application of aluminum
products to improve the efficiency of energy use and/or increase
sustainability of the campus.”- Alcoa
Definition of Sustainability
• Living comfortably but with current means, to ensure that future
generations can live with comfortably as well
Problem Statement
• Increase the energy efficiency of the Penn state campus using the
intrinsic properties of aluminum effectively increasing
sustainability with a focus on the Hammond building

4. Customer Needs
Stakeholders
• Office of Physical Plant
• Kawneer
• PSU faculty and students
• Alcoa

5. Research
Primary Stakeholders
• Office of Physical Plant
• Professor Lau
• Alcoa- (Information about the company)
Independent Research
• Creation of Aluminum
• Properties of Aluminum

6. Design Specifications
1. Must be affordable to Penn State University (Price range from $100,000-
$250,000)’
2. Durable (Last for a minimum of 20 years)
3. Must have a return on investment (Over its life time it break even on
cost)
4. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (15% cut in greenhouse gas
emissions)
5. Easily Maintained (Requires maximum of one hour of attention per
week)
6. Easily Installed (Implemented within a maximum of two years)
7. Improves Productivity of a System (Productivity increased by 20%)

7. Weighted Specifications Matrix
Specification # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Row Total Row Total/ Total
1 1 3 1/3 1/5 7 7 1 19.53 0.18
2 1/3 1 1/5 1/7 3 3 1/3 8.01 0.075
3 3 5 1 1 6 6 3 25 0.24
4 5 7 1 1 7 6 3 30 0.28
5 1/7 1/3 1/6 1/7 1 1 1/6 2.95 0.027
6 1/7 1/3 1/6 1/6 1 1 1/6 2.98 0.028
7 1 3 1/3 1/3 6 6 1 17.66 0.17
Total 106.13

8. Concept Generation

9. A. HVAC System in Hammond
www.specifile.co.za
• 15-20% less cooling costs which would
lower the cooling costs by
• Aluminum HVAC systems as they are not
as susceptible to the corrosion (lower
matainace costs)
• Utilizes Natural Ventelation

10. B. Aluminum Elevators in Hammond
www.forms-surfaces.com
• The light nature of aluminum would
result in less energy needed to bring
the carriage up and down the elevator
shaft (1/3 the weight of steel)
• Average energy use of a current Gen2™
elevator system is 4493 kWh/month.
• Very high weight capacity of Aluminum

11. C. Aluminum Cata Bus Interiors
onwardstate.com
• For every one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of
aluminum used to replace higher density
steel or iron components in a vehicle,
there is the potential to save 20
kilograms (44 pounds) of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions
• Up to 44% lighter than steel equivalents
and support the move to higher-load-capacity
tires
• 10% reduction in vehicle weight results in
a fuel savings of 7%.

12. D. Cafeteria Reconstruction of East
sites.psu.edu
• Because this is a planned reconstruction
of East halls it will be less inconvenient
• This Situation offers easy instillation of
sustainable aluminum appliances and
utilities that would decrease the carbon
footprint of the Penn State campus
• Aluminum windows, and spray on the
outside of the building to soak up CO2
and other greenhouse gases.

13. E. Aluminum Sunshades for Hammond
www.h-hmetals.com
• Reduce cooling costs buy up to 50% in
summer months
• Average cooling cost savings being
between 20%-30%. This will save the
university money and reduce the need for
energy therefore decreasing the amount of
greenhouse gases in the air.
• Easy to install, requires while requiring
minimum amounts of maintainace while in
place.

14. Evaluation

15. Concept Matrix
Selection
Criteria
A B C D E Reference
1 - 0 - - + 0
2 + 0 - 0 + 0
3 + + + 0 + 0
4 0 + + + + 0
5 0 - - 0 + 0
6 - - - + - 0
7 + - + 0 + 0
Pluses 3 2 3 2 6
Same 2 2 0 4 0
Minuses 2 3 4 1 1
Net 1 -1 -1 1 5
Rank 2 4 4 2 1
Continue? NO NO NO NO YES

16. Weighted Concept Matrix

17. Best Design: Aluminum Shades
• The aluminum shades met
every specification in a
more ideal manner then the
other projects presented.
• Easy implementation
• Aesthetic Value
• Increases Sustainability
• Most cost effective

18. Cost Analysis
• The cooling costs for Hammond we received from OPP were vital in
determining cost benefit.
• $4,700 saved in August alone
• 45,190 over the course of 2012
• Contacting Kawneer, a partner to Alcoa who sells a product like this we
were able to determine the instillation cost
• 122,850 Cost of instillation
• We determined that the shades will pay for themselves in less than a
decade
• Three years for the instillation costs
• Shades are the easiest idea to implement of the five
• Fastest return on investment with minimal work required to maintain

19. Prototype

20. Conclusion
Problem Statement
• Increase the energy efficiency of the Penn state campus using the
intrinsic properties of aluminum effectively increasing
sustainability with a focus on the Hammond building
• The Aluminum shades accomplish the goal of the problem
statement, in a cost effective and sustainable manner.

21. Gantt Chart

22. References
• http://www.hydro.com/en/About-aluminium/How-its-made/
• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18071/aluminum-processing
• http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/energy-efficient-window-treatments
• http://www.awninginfo.com/home_awning_save_energy.html
• http://www.sunsetter.com/reduce_energy.asp
• http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/tips-heating-and-cooling
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVAC
• http://www.cineventions.com/steel_aluminum.html
• http://www.alcoa.com/usa/en/home.asp

23. Questions?

24. Heating Bill Of Hammond
Facility Commodity Unit 2012-7 (Jan-12) 2012-8 (Feb-12) 2012-9 (Mar-12) 2012-10 (Apr-12) 2012-11 (May-12)
HAMMOND Electricity $ 397.12 18,074.75 18,431.36 16,885.28 902.92
HAMMOND Electricity kWh 4,288.00 199,652.00 202,083.00 184,312.00 8,283.00
HAMMOND Electricity kW 14 377 472 480 117
Facility Commodity Unit 2013-7 (Jan-13) 2013-8 (Feb-13) 2013-9 (Mar-13) 2013-10 (Apr-13) 2013-11 (May-13)
HAMMOND Electricity $ 14,137.75 16,673.36 12,876.46 21,795.65 10,682.51
HAMMOND Electricity kWh 168,039.00 197,239.00 151,516.00 261,646.00 122,661.00
HAMMOND Electricity kW 397 515 438 483 515
2012-12 (Jun-12) 2013-1 (Jul-12) 2013-2 (Aug-12) 2013-3 (Sep-12) 2013-4 (Oct-12) 2013-5 (Nov-12) 2013-6 (Dec-12)
16,451.45 20,886.59 21,090.29 18,191.01 17,694.14 19,645.28 12,113.15
180,053.00 240,134.00 243,556.00 208,549.00 203,458.00 226,467.00 137,828.00
440 586 536 541 495 520 414
2013-12 (Jun-13) 2014-1 (Jul-13) 2014-2 (Aug-13) 2014-3 (Sep-13)
14,335.62 20,209.33 17,028.86 17,569.85
167,997.00 244,965.00 205,457.00 209,721.00
522 330 242 365
Back
Back 2

25. Blue Prints
Used to Identify
problem space, and
further examine
floor layout
Used to further
examine the
southwestern
facing wall
Back